W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Updates to FileAPI

From: Jian Li <jianli@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:38:31 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimJijF=uXG9MAbG1LHKXFnSTF5drHxUcA_OMHt2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>
Cc: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

>
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> >
> > http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/
> >
> > Notably:
> >
> > 1. lastModifiedDate returns a Date object.
>
> You don't have a conformance requirement for returning a Date object. (The
> only MUST is for the case of the UA not being able to return the
> information.) I mention this because for attributes that return
> objects, it's important to specify whether the same object is returned
> each time or whether it's a new object that is created each time.
> Presumably for a Date object you want to require a new object be created
> each time.
>

I think it makes more sense to return a new Date object each time. We have
the same issue with Metadata.modificationTime.

>
>
> > 2. We use the URL object and expose static methods on it for Blob URI
> > creation and revocation.
>
> Looks good to me. FYI, I'm probably going to be extending this mechanism
> for Streams in due course. I expect I'll bring this up again in due course
> so we can work out how to make sure the specs don't step on each other.
>
> I'm a little concerned about the lifetime of these URLs potentially
> exposing GC behaviour -- we've tried really hard not to expose GC
> behaviour in the past, for good reason. Can't we jetison the URLs as part
> of the unloading document cleanup steps?
>
>
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html#unloading-document-cleanup-steps
>
> (Note that Window objects in some edge cases can survive their Document.)
>
>
> > Also, I've minuted Sam Weinig at TPAC saying he'd prefer us to roll back
> > from using the sequence<T> type WebIDL syntax to index getters.  Sam:
> > are you still tightly wed to this?  WebIDL has undergone changes since
> > last we spoke.  I'm copying what HTML5 is doing, and didn't want to be
> > inconsistent in rolling this back.
>
> FWIW, IIRC the HTML spec is a bit out of sync when it comes to WebIDL.
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
>
Received on Monday, 20 December 2010 22:39:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:42 GMT